PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD

COMBINED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT AND 

RECORD OF DECISION 

APPENDIX E:

COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING DEIS 

COMMENT PERIOD

Prepared for:

Federal Rail Administration

Mississippi Department of Transportation
This page intentionally left blank.
United States Department of the Interior 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

Richard B. Russell Federal Building 

75 Ted Turner Drive, S.W., Suite 1144 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

ER 18/0435 

9043.1 

November 2, 2018 

Mr. Kevin Wright 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Comments and Recommendations on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

for Port Bienville Railroad in Mississippi 

Dear Mr. Wright: 

The U.S. Department of the Interior (Department) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) for Port Bienville Railroad in Mississippi. On October 9, 2018, the 

Department of the Interior announced the proposed listing of the eastern black rail (Laterallus 

jamaicensis jamaicensis) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The eastern black rail 

is a bird that may be found in a variety of salt, brackish, and freshwater marsh habitats that can 

be tidally or non-tidally influenced. Its range includes the eastern United States, Mexico, Central 

America, and the Caribbean with potential habitat and range throughout Mississippi. The draft 

EIS did not address the eastern black rail since the document was completed prior to the 

Department announcing the proposed listing. We recommend the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) or its designated non-federal representative include in the EIS an 

assessment of the impacts of the proposed project on the eastern black rail. 

We recommend the FRA, or its designated non-federal representative include in the EIS an 

assessment of the impacts of the proposed project on migratory birds protected under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

The applicant made a determination that the proposed project “may affect but is not likely to 

adversely affect” the federally endangered Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis). According 

to the information in the draft EIS, impacts to stream habitat that could potentially contain 

Louisiana quillwort are not anticipated because several of the crossings will be modifications of 
Port Bienville Railroad in Mississippi - ER 18-0435

2 

existing stream crossings. However, Louisiana quillwort can occur adjacent to existent road 

crossings; therefore, we recommend the EIS include details of the survey methodology used 

including habitat conditions during the surveys and timing of the surveys. Louisiana quillwort is 

typically visible from November until May but is dependent upon rainfall, as plants completely 

dieback and are not visible when the intermittent streams, which are habitat for this species, have 

dried-up. If conditions or timing of the surveys previously conducted are found not to be 

appropriate for detecting Louisiana quillwort, we recommend surveying suitable habitat in the 

proposed project impact area prior to the start of construction, and early enough for formal 

consultation to occur if Louisiana quillwort are discovered. 

If you have questions, please contact Amy Carson on (601) 321-1130 or via email

amy_commens-carson@fws.gov. I can be reached on (404) 331-4524 or via email 

joyce_stanley@ios.doi.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Joyce Stanley, MPA 

Regional Environmental Officer 

cc: Christine Willis - FWS 

Michael Norris - USGS 

Steven Wright - NPS 

OEPC - WASH 
1

Mulholland, Renee C.

From: Wright, Kevin (FRA) <kevin.wright@dot.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 7:19 AM

To: Healy, Stuart F.; Belvin, Michael L.; Thurman, Kim; kevin.keller hdrinc.com; Bill Cork; McGuire, Michael 

T; Dixon, Marc (FRA)

Subject: RE: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Port Bienville Railroad in 

Mississippi - ER 18-0435

Apologies, this letter came from DOI EPC.  Sorry to get everyone excited! 

Kevin 

202‐493‐0845 

From: Wright, Kevin (FRA)  

Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 7:03 AM 

To: Healy, Stuart F. <healysf@cdmsmith.com>; Belvin, Michael L. <belvinml@cdmsmith.com>; Thurman, Kim 

<kthurman@mdot.ms.gov>; kevin.keller hdrinc.com <kevin.keller@hdrinc.com>; Wright, Kevin (FRA) 

<kevin.wright@dot.gov>; Bill Cork <bcork@hcphc.ms>; McGuire, Michael T <mcguiremt@cdmsmith.com>; Dixon, Marc 

(FRA) <marc.dixon@dot.gov> 

Subject: FW: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Port Bienville Railroad in Mississippi ‐ 

ER 18‐0435 

No comments from EPA.  See attached. 

Kevin

202‐493‐0845 

From: Stanley, Joyce [mailto:joyce_stanley@ios.doi.gov]  

Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 11:26 AM 

To: Wright, Kevin (FRA) <kevin.wright@dot.gov> 

Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Port Bienville Railroad in Mississippi ‐ ER 18‐

0435 

Please see attached comments. 

Joyce A. Stanley, MPA 

Regional Environmental Officer 

US Department of the Interior 

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

(404) 331-4524 - Office

(404) 331-1736 - Fax

(404) 852-5414 - Mobile

joyce_stanley@ios.doi.gov

http://www.doi.gov/oepc/atlanta.html
United States Department of the Interior 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

Richard B. Russell Federal Building 

75 Ted Turner Drive, S.W., Suite 1144 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

ER 18/0435 

9043.1 

October 30, 2018 

Mr. Kevin Wright 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Port Bienville 

Railroad in Mississippi 

Dear Mr. Wright: 

The U.S. Department of the Interior (Department) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) for Port Bienville Railroad in Mississippi. We have no comments at this 

time. 

If you have questions, please contact Steven Wright at steve_m_wright@nps.gov. I can be 

reached on (404) 331-4524 or via email at joyce_stanley@ios.doi.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Joyce Stanley, MPA 

Regional Environmental Officer 

cc: Christine Willis - FWS 

Michael Norris - USGS 

Steven Wright - NPS 

OEPC - WASH 
3141 West Tidewater Lane, Madison, MS 39110 

Phone: 601.954.7236

UNITED FOR A HEALTHY GULF

November 5, 2018 

Kevin Wright 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE 

Washington D.C., 20590 

Kevin.wright@dot.gov 

Kim Thurman 

Environmental Division Administrator 

Mississippi Department of Transportation 

401 N. West Street 

Jackson, MS 39201 

kthurman@mdot.ms.gov 

Re: Comments on Port Bienville Short Line Railroad, Hancock County, Miss. Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Dear Mr. Wright and Ms. Thurman: 

Gulf Restoration Network is submitting this comment letter on the DEIS for the Port 

Bienville Railroad on behalf of its members in Mississippi concerned with the integrity of 

wetlands, water quality and habitats. 

The project selects a route described by Alternative “C” to connect a railroad spur near 

Nicholson, Mississippi with the rail line serving Port Bienville in the southwest corner of 

Hancock County. This Route described in Alternative C is one of the screened routes 

that stays farthest from the Pearl River and avoids disturbing several wetland mitigation 

banks around the Stennis Space Center and its buffer zone. 

Three of the streams that must be crossed with railroad bridges or culverts are Turtle 

Skin Creek, Dead Tiger Creek and Catahoula Creek, all of which are listed for biological 

impairments, and appear on the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality’s 

2016 303 (d) list of impaired waters. None of the three has a Total Maximum Daily Load 

TMDL Documents prepared for it that might help characterize what the biological 
impairments are. Turtleskin Creek is a tributary to the Pearl River, while the other two 

streams drain to Bay St. Louis in MDEQ’s Coastal Streams Basin.

With respect to Turtleskin Creek, we suggest that special care be used both in crossing 

it with bridges and in managing the sheet flow in its drainage area. Since it is a tributary 

to the Pearl River’s Eastern branch (East Pearl), and since water quantity upstream is 

a problem for this reach of the river due to channel filling, logjams, and the presence of 

the Walkiah Bluff Diversion that doesn’t seem to distribute water equitably between the 

West Pearl and the Pearl, special care needs to be given to projects that might impede 

sheet flow along this Creek. Water quantity can be affected, and the Pearl doesn’t need 

any new sources of disruption or stress. MDEQ is also concerned about sheet flow 

here, as noted in the DEIS introduction. 

It was noted in section 5.31 of the main body of the DEIS that: 

“A detailed hydrologic study has not been completed for this Project. However it 

appears that the majority of the hydrologic conditions of this area are attributed to sheet 

flow. During coordination with resource agencies it was suggested that optimally this 

type of hydrology should be maintained, which could be accomplished by using 

stabilizer pipes and leveler (level) spreader as shown in figure 10. 

Sheet flow is important in the boggy areas that feed creeks like Turtle Skin Creek or 

Dead Tiger Creek in this low-relief, extremely flat section of Hancock County. Likewise 

the bogs found in the vicinity of these slow moving coastal streams are underlain by 

saturated lenses of sand or peat very close to the surface. Sheet flow and shallow 

groundwater feed the creeks which in turn flow to the Pearl or Jourdan Rivers. 

Streams, like the three listed above on the 303(d) list, already experiencing biological 

impairment, won’t become less impaired if water quantity changes because sheet flow 

is disrupted by a filled and elevated track bed. Track bed design should avoid, to the 

greatest extent possible, alterations in the pattern of movement in surface water flows or 

shallow groundwater that can cause water deficits during dry periods in both bogs 

bisected by the project and the small drains and streams in this section of the Pearl 

River basin. 

Railroad track beds on fill will change sheet flow, creating low dams that interfere with 

surface water movement. The weight of the track beds and their compaction serve also 

to alter the shallow flows that let these bog soils transfer water. Some form of piping 

system may help keep water moving under the track beds, and longer elevated 

approaches on creeks – building elevated track bridges slightly longer than required by 

cost conscious engineers – would also facilitate better stream flow. Because the Pearl 

River’s flow needs are more stressed than those of the Jordan River, special attention 

should be paid to the engineering of the track bed in the vicinity of Turtle Skin Creek. 

More stabilizer pipe and level spreaders need to be installed in the sections of track 

along this stream than in other sections in order to better protect the Pearl River. 
Making the bridge over Turtle Skin Creek longer in Wetland sections K, L, and M would 

give Turtle Skin Creek and the Pearl River better protection. 

Surveys for the protected quillwort and iron-color shiners in all three of these low 

gradient streams should be performed if they haven’t yet been undertaken. 

GRN members near Picayune, living near Alligator Branch close to the frac sand 

processing plant in the local industrial park have cited existing safety concerns along 

U.S. Hwy 11 with respect to trains and road traffic. They cite long trains that block 

multiple grade level approaches simultaneously for 45 minutes to 1 hour as trains stop 

at the Picayune Industrial Park between Picayune and Nicholson to have sand or gravel 

loaded into them. Our members cite car wrecks and fatalities on U.S. 11 and are 

concerned about more trains. In the current conditions, trains block several crossings 

and cars pull off onto the shoulder to wait for trains to pass so they can enter roads 

going west from U.S. Hwy 11. Special attention should be paid to the safety concerns of 

adding more train traffic along US Hwy. 11 which is known as a treacherous and busy 

road. 

This DEIS states in Section 5.5.3.1 that “safety on U.S. Hwy 11 at existing grade 

crossings could also be affected and that U.S. Hwy 11 crossings would have additional 

train traffic.” This is in the Schools/Safety section of the DEIS in 5.5.3.1, lines 5-13. The 

two agencies, FRA and MDOT should pay special attention to the ongoing train/traffic 

situation in the Nicolson to Picayune area. People living there now recognize that there 

are already traffic congestion problems due to trains at the existing grade crossings 

along U.S. Hwy 11. These issues should be taken into account before more train traffic 

is injected into the Nicholson vicinity. 

We appreciate the chance to comment on the DEIS document. 

Sincerely, 

Andrew Whitehurst 

Water Program Director 

Gulf Restoration Network 





1

Mulholland, Renee C.

From: Johnson, Adam <ajohnson@mdot.ms.gov>

Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 2:50 PM

To: McGuire, Michael T; Belvin, Michael L.; Healy, Stuart F.; kevin.wright@dot.gov

Subject: FW: FW: Port Bienville Railroad - Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Public Hearing

NMFS at NOAA has no comments. 

Adam Johnson 

From: Brandon Howard ‐ NOAA Federal [mailto:brandon.howard@noaa.gov]  

Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 12:33 PM 

To: Johnson, Adam <ajohnson@mdot.ms.gov> 

Subject: Re: FW: Port Bienville Railroad ‐ Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Public Hearing 

Hi Adam. 

Sorry for the delay. I'm still getting through emails after being on vacation. Yes, I'm covering MS after Rick's 

retirement. 

NMFS Habitat Conservation Division (HCD) has reviewed the draft EIS listed below and has no comment to provide at this time since 

NMFS trust resources are not present. NMFS HCD does not object to the project. Feel free to contact me if further information is needed. 

Brandon 

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 2:54 PM Johnson, Adam <ajohnson@mdot.ms.gov> wrote: 

Mr. Howard, 

I tried to pass the following on to Richard Hartman as he was our contact with the NMFS-NOAA for the 

subject project. I contacted some of your peers at NMFS and they said Mr. Hartman had retired and you had 

taken over his responsibilities. As such, I’m passing it on to you for review and comment. Feel free to contact 

me with any questions.

Thanks

Adam Johnson, P.E.

Location Engineer 

Environmental Division 

Mississippi Department of Transportation 
2

601-359-7875

The Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT), in coordination with Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) and the Hancock County Ports and Harbor Commission, has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) for the proposed construction of a new railroad line that would connect the Port of Bienville 

Short Line Railroad at the Port Bienville Industrial Park (Port) in Hancock County with the existing Norfolk 

Southern Railroad near Nicholson in Pearl River County. The proposed rail line would begin near the 

industrial park and travel around the eastern boundary of Stennis Space Center Fee Area through the 

Acoustical Buffer Zone. The proposed corridor turns northwest, parallel to Texas Flat Road, and would then 

follow the existing, inactive Norfolk Southern line into Nicholson, tying into the active rail line near U.S. 

Route 11. 

DEIS AVAILABILITY

The DEIS defines the proposed project; illustrates current and previously considered alternatives; identifies 

natural, social and economic environments in the project area; and describes potential impacts the proposed 

project could cause. The DEIS can be viewed at http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Environmental/Pages/Projects.aspx or 

at https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0798. Hard copies are available from MDOT by request and can be reviewed 

at the following locations: 

Pearlington Public Library Pearl River County Library MDOT Lyman 

Project Office 

6096 First Avenue 900 Goodyear Boulevard 16499 US Highway 

49 

Pearlington, MS 39572 Picayune, MS 39466 Saucier, MS 39574 
3

Hancock County Pearl River County 

Office of County Administrator Office of County Administrator 

854 Highway 90 200 South Main Street 

Bay St. Louis, MS 39520 Poplarville, MS 39470 

PUBLIC HEARING

A public hearing will provide an opportunity for the public to learn about the project, the environmental issues 

that were identified and the plans to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts to environmental resources. 

Attendees will be able to share opinions and ask questions. 

Where: Stennis International Airport 

Multipurpose Room No. 202 

7250 Stennis Airport Drive 

Kiln, MS 39556 

Date: October 23, 2018

Time: 4 – 7 p.m.

The public hearing will be presented in an open house format, without a formal presentation. Maps showing 

the project study area, the DEIS and other project materials will be available for review and comment. 

Members of MDOT, FRA and consultants will be available to answer questions regarding the proposed 

project. 

Public Officials/Resource Agencies Meeting

Before the public hearing, MDOT will host a meeting for public officials and resource agencies, giving them 

an additional opportunity to review the information and speak with the study team members. That meeting is 

scheduled for 1:00 p.m. October 23, 2018, at the same location as the public hearing. 
4

Feel free to contact Location Engineer Adam Johnson with questions. 

Thank you, 

Adam Johnson, P.E.

Location Engineer 

Environmental Division 

Mississippi Department of Transportation 

601-359-7875

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any files or attachments may contain confidential and 

privileged information. 

If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender at the above e-mail address and delete it 

and 

all copies from your system. 

-- 

Brandon Howard 

Fishery Biologist

Habitat Conservation Division 

NOAA Fisheries Service

Louisiana State University

Military Sciences Bldg, Rm 266

South Stadium Rd

Baton Rouge, LA 70803

Office: 225-389-0508 Xt. 203 

Right-click 

here to dow

To help pr

privacy, O

auto matic d

this picture

Internet.

Web www.nmfs.noaa.gov

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/NOAAFisheries/

Twitter www.twitter.com/noaafisheries

YouTube www.youtube.com/usnoaafisheriesgov

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any files or attachments may contain confidential and 

privileged information. 
5

If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender at the above e-mail address and delete it and 

all copies from your system. 
HANCOCK COUNTY SOLAR PROJECT, LLC 

16105 West 113th Street, Suite 105 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219 

P: 913.888.9463 

tradewindenergy.com 

1 

November 5, 2018 

Kevin Wright 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., MS-20

Washington, DC 20590 

Kevin.wright@dot.gov 

Re: Comment on Draft EIS for the Port Bienville Railroad Project 

Dear Mr. Wright, 

I am providing this comment on behalf of Hancock County Solar Project, LLC (the “Project 

Company”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Tradewind Energy, Inc. (“Tradewind”) with respect to the draft 

EIS for the Preferred Alternative route for the Port Bienville Railroad Project. The Project Company has 

acquired certain rights through private agreements with landowners whose property lies within the 

route described in the draft EIS. Those rights are for the purpose of constructing a utility-scale solar 

energy system in Hancock County, Mississippi (the “Project”). The development of this solar energy 

system has been ongoing for more than two years and multiple applications are currently pending with 

various governmental entities to allow completion of the Project. The Project is proposed to generate 

up to 80 MW of solar energy that would connect to the 115 kilovolt NASA North Switch Station 

substation adjacent to the Project. 

 The proposed route runs directly through the Project land, a fact not mentioned in the draft EIS. 

As a result, we oppose the use of segment 10b of the Preferred Alternative, which splits much of the 

Project property in half, effectively rendering it useless for the Project. 

The draft EIS fails to consider the dramatic impact on this Project and similarly fails to consider 

the increased cost of acquiring the necessary right-of-way, cost that will be based on the value of the 

land for use as a solar energy facility. In addition, the draft EIS does not consider the lost revenue to the 

Picayune School District. The District owns land which is subject to a Solar Site Evaluation Easement 

which could generate meaningful revenues only if the Project moves forward. We ask that the added 

cost of land acquisition and the lost revenues to the District be part of the evaluation of any proposed 

route. 
HANCOCK COUNTY SOLAR PROJECT, LLC 

16105 West 113th Street, Suite 105 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219 

P: 913.888.9463 

tradewindenergy.com 

2 

We request coordination on a minor deviation in proposed segment 10b to the south of the 

Project site, resulting in a more reasonably planned route that avoids splitting Project lots in half. A 

deviation is possible that will allow the Project to move forward and allow acquisition of the necessary 

right-of-way. 

The Project Company has been actively developing its solar energy system and investing 

significant assets into that effort. A non-exclusive list of the Project Company’s activities and 

investments in the Project to date is instructive: 

 In July 2016, submitted application for interconnection permission to Southern

Company Services, Inc.;

 In September 2018, submitted Special Exception Application and Site Plan to Hancock

County for approval;

 In October 2018, signed interconnection agreement with Southern Company Services,

Inc., requiring a substantial financial commitment;

 Conducted multiple environmental surveys in the Project area that are ongoing;

 Submitted Buffer Zone Consent Application to US Army Corps of Engineers (NASA

coordinating agency) for location in the NASA Stennis Space Center buffer zone;

 Invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to date in additional land acquisition, design

and development costs;

 Secured legal interests in approximately 2,535 acres of real property (see recorded

documents attached).

This Project would create approximately 300 temporary jobs during construction, increase the 

County’s tax base, improve the utility grid through private investment and provide clean, renewable 

energy that will have a net positive benefit on the environment and air quality. These benefits could still 

be realized with only minor changes to the Preferred Alternative. 
HANCOCK COUNTY SOLAR PROJECT, LLC 

16105 West 113th Street, Suite 105 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219 

P: 913.888.9463 

tradewindenergy.com 

3 

We ask that the Mississippi Department of Transportation and the Federal Railroad 

Administration reconsider segment 10b due to the Draft EIS failure to consider the increased cost and 

impact due to the proposed Project. We also request that we be kept up to date of future 

developments on the Port Bienville Railroad Project as it has a very direct impact on the viability of this 

Project. 

Sincerely, 

Drew Gibbons 

Development Director 

Enclosure
























December 14th 2018

ATTN: Kevin Wright

Environmental Protection Specialist

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, MS-20

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Port Bienville Railroad Project

Dear Mr. Wright, 

The Southern Rail Commission (SRC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Port Bienville Railroad Project (the Project). We 

urge the Federal Railroad Administration to update the EIS to incorporate the findings of the 

Congressionally established Gulf Coast Working Group, co-led by the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) and the Southern Rail Commission and other recent developments around 

the restoration of passenger rail along the Gulf Coast. The draft EIS unfortunately omits these 

developments and therefore gives an incomplete and inaccurate picture about the current and 

future transportation network in the discussion about the no-build and alternative analysis 

scenarios. The SRC encourages FRA to update the draft EIS to reflect the the Gulf Coast 

Working Group’s excellent work and these recent developments around the restoration of 

passenger rail along the Gulf Coast. 

Background

The Southern Rail Commission is the only multi-state rail compact created by the U.S. 

Congress. The 97th Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed Public Law 97-213 

in 1982, which provided consent to the Mississippi-Louisiana Rapid Rail Transit Compact and 

the formation of the Mississippi-Louisiana Rapid Rail Transit Commission. The legislation allows 

contiguous states to become a party to the interstate compact and commission. The MississippiLouisiana Rapid Rail Transit Commission was expanded in 1983 to include the State of Alabama 

and renamed the Southern High-Speed Rail Commission. In 2011, the organization was 

renamed again to the Southern Rail Commission.

Since its creation in 1982, the SRC has worked to expand passenger rail service across the 

South, and for the past five years this has included restoring rail service along the Gulf Coast. 

Membership consists of the Governor of each member-state, a representative from each State’s 

Department of Transportation, and five citizen members appointed by the respective Governors. 

The signees of this letter represent the SRC’s executive committee, which lead the day to day 

activities of the SRC and is made up of one member from each state. 

Recent Developments

The Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act (PRRIA) of 2015 directed the FRA to convene a 

working group to evaluate the feasibility of intercity operations between New Orleans, Louisiana 

and Orlando, Florida, and to submit a report to Congress identifying plans, costs, funding 

options, and potential benefits for the restoration of passenger rail service. In response to this 

mandate, the Gulf Coast Working Group was convened in 2015 and included representatives of 

FRA, Amtrak, CSX, the Southern Rail Commission, State departments of transportation, local 

elected officials, metropolitan planning organizations, businesses, and tribes representing the 

interests of communities in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida.

OFFICERS 

John Spain

Chairman 

Knox Ross

Vice-Chairman

Wiley Blankenship

Secretary-Treasurer

COMMISSIONERS

ALABAMA

Gov. Kay Ivey

Anita Archie

 Toby Bennington

Wiley Blankenship

David Clark

Stephen McNair

John Clyde Riggs

LOUISIANA

Gov. John Bel Edwards

Dr. Shawn Wilson

Governor’s Designee

Rep. Stephen Carter

Tommy Clark

Phil Jones

Rep. Walter Leger, III

John Spain

D. Jerome Wall, III

Roy Woodruff

MISSISSIPPI

Gov. Phil Bryant

Ashley Edwards

Kay Kell

Melinda McGrath

Jack Norris

Alice Perry

Knox Ross

Patrick Sullivan
In July 2017, the Gulf Coast Working Group submitted its final report to Congress. The report identified two daily 

state-supported trains between New Orleans and Mobile as the preferred option among the studied alternatives, with 

high ridership demand and low operating funding needs. The route would run mostly on CSX’s main line between 

New Orleans and Mobile. In the final GCWG report, FRA recommended a list of infrastructure improvements for the 

CSX-owned line between New Orleans and Mobile that if implemented, would help restore a well functioning 

passenger rail service. That work, valued at approximately $96 million, includes: additional yard bypass tracks; 

improvements to passing sidings; addition of higher speed turnouts to existing siding tracks; upgrades to miter rails 

on moveable bridges, which would allow for higher speeds; and other projects. It’s important to note that FRA and 

the SRC found that train service could basically be run today, with only station ADA improvements and an upgrade 

turnaround track at Mobile required to begin service. This assessment was confirmed via the inspection train trip on 

February 18th 2016, mentioned in section 4.18.3.4 of the draft EIS, which ran from New Orleans to Mobile without 

any problems. 

Additionally, in 2015, the Southern Rail Commission contracted with Amtrak to evaluate service options along the 

Gulf Coast. Amtrak analyzed ridership levels, projected revenues, and associated costs, releasing a report in 

December 2015. Five alternatives and sub-alternatives were developed in Amtrak’s Potential Gulf Coast Service 

Restoration Options study, including daily state-supported service between New Orleans and Mobile and longdistance train service between New Orleans and Orlando. The two round trips a day recommended by the Gulf 

Coast Working Group was one of the options analyzed by Amtrak and found to be financially and logistically 

feasible. 

Furthermore, Amtrak has indicated its continued commitment to moving forward with the restoration of passenger 

service along the Gulf Coast by submitting a letter in the Spring of 2018 to CSX notifying CSX of Amtrak’s intent to 

restore passenger rail service in 12-18 months between New Orleans and Mobile on CSX’s main line. 

Finally, the Southern Rail Commission has applied for 1) operating support to restart passenger rail service through 

FY17 funding for FRA’s Restoration and Enhancement (R&E) grant program and 2) capital funds to help implement 

some of the Gulf Coast Working Group’s recommendations through FY18 funding for the Consolidated Rail 

Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) program. One of the improvements the SRC applied for is 

lengthening a siding at Ansley, just east of the Port of Bienville, along CSX’s main line. The Southern Rail 

Commission is currently waiting to hear back from FRA on its decision on those grant applications. 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Omissions

As mentioned in the introduction, the current draft EIS unfortunately omits the developments in the previous section 

and therefore gives an incomplete and inaccurate picture about the current and future transportation network in the 

discussion about the no-build and alternative analysis scenarios.

Specifically: 

1. Section 4.18.3.4 of the draft EIS entitled “Passenger Rail” does not mention any of the work the FRA co-lead

Gulf Coast Working Group (GCWG) has done to fulfill Congress’s mandate that the GCWG examine how

best to restore passenger rail along the Gulf Coast.

Recommendation: The EIS should be updated to add background about the GCWG, including Congress’s

mandate, the rigorous process the GCWG went through in studying how best to restore passenger rail across

the Gulf Coast, and the GCWG final recommendations.

2) Section 4.18.3.4 states at the bottom of the third paragraph that “indications are that passenger rail may be viable

if CSX’s mainline route is double tracked in the future.” This statement is factually inaccurate and should be

removed. As part of the GCWG final report, FRA did its own infrastructure analysis to determine what’s needed 

for a viable passenger rail service. It did not find any double track was needed to implement a viable service. 

Recommendation: The draft EIS should be updated to remove the factually inaccurate statement and instead 

explain the infrastructure analysis that FRA’s staff conducted as part of the GCWG final report and what that 

analysis found. 

3) The last paragraph in section 4.18.3.4 discusses the Gulf Coast High Speed Rail Corridor. While it’s true that

the Gulf Coast Rail Corridor was designated a high speed rail corridor and CSX’s main line is part of that

corridor, the discussions around passenger service have not been around high speed rail (defined as 110 mph
or higher) as those speeds would be very unrealistic operationally and cost prohibitive. Instead, the 

conversations in the Gulf Coast Working Group and between Amtrak and the SRC have been around lower, 

more realistic speeds like 79 mph. The mention of operating at 110 mph and therefore needing to double track 

CSX’s main line to operate at those speeds is misleading because it implies 110 mph is under consideration, 

which is not true. Furthermore, the GCWG did not examine what would be needed from an infrastructure 

standpoint to operate at 110 mph. 

Recommendation: The draft EIS should be updated to remove the statement about operating at 110 mph and 

the need to double CSX’s mainline in order to operate at 110 mph to eliminate any potential misconceptions. 

Instead the EIS should mention the GCWG’s and FRA’s infrastructure analysis that FRA’s staff conducted as 

part of the GCWG final report and what that analysis found. If there is a continued desire to add details about 

the operation of future passenger rail service, Amtrak and the SRC should be consulted for those details as they 

would be the co-operators of the service Amtrak has notified CSX it intends to run. 

4) Section 4.18.3.5 states that “based on the Mississippi State Rail Plan, there are no known rail project planned

within the study area.” The SRC strongly believes this section does not come close to adequately representing

the latest Mississippi State Rail Plan, last updated in 2016. The Mississippi state rail plan goes into a detailed

discussion about the efforts to improve passenger rail within the state of Mississippi, including efforts to restore

passenger rail service along the Gulf Coast.

The rail plan specifically states on page 2-63 that: 

Mississippi intends to build upon the current plans and priorities of the SRC. The majority of 

destinations for Mississippi rail passengers are outside the state. Thus it is critical for Mississippi 

that the SRC remains a highly coordinated, supportive, consistent partnership in order for 

Mississippi to achieve expanded passenger rail service. The SRC priorities and phasing plan 

need to be supported even if that means that a particular state’s projects are not the first to be 

undertaken. The strength of this partnership is a very important part of the federal application 

process.

It’s clear from the above passage in the 2016 rail plan that the State of Mississippi support the SRC’s efforts to 

restore passenger rail service along the Gulf Coast and intends to build on them. 

The Southern Rail Commission has now applied for federal funding to implement specific projects along 

CSX’s main line to add capacity to effectuate a well run passenger rail service. One of these projects is 

lengthening a siding at Ansley, just east of the Port of Bienville, along CSX’s main line. The lengthened siding 

at Ansley would be well within the project area. 

Recommendation: The draft EIS should be updated to add a discussion about the State of Mississippi’s 2016 

rail plan update and the State’s rail goals, including its desire to implement a Gulf Coast passenger rail 

service. Furthermore, the draft EIS should mention the SRC’s federal application, especially the SRC’s 

application for funds to build a siding east of Ansley on the CSX main line, which is in close proximity to the 

Port of Bienville. Overall, section 4.18.3.5 does not represent the current State of Mississippi’s rail plan and 

needs to be updated to bring it in sync with the 2016 state rail plan. 

5) Section 4.18.4, as part of the discussion of short-range and long-range improvements to the I-10/CSX

corridor, mentions double tracking CSX’s mainline to accommodate passenger rail. As the Gulf Coast Working

Group found, double tracking CSX’s mainline is not necessary to accommodate passenger rail service and

FRA’s own infrastructure analysis that was conducted as part of this study confirms this point. The projects the

SRC has applied for through FY18 CRISI funding to advance the restoration of passenger rail service are based

on FRA’s own recommendations and are focused on adding capacity to CSX’s main line through new or

lengthened sidings, higher speed turnouts and upgraded grade crossings. None of these projects would doubletrack CSX’s main-line.

Recommendation: The draft EIS should be updated to remove the reference to double tracking CSX’s main 

line since no party is planning to pursue double tracking CSX’s main line to accommodate passenger rail service 

(CSX’s freight capacity plans is outside the purview of the SRC). Instead, the EIS should explain the 

infrastructure analysis that FRA’s staff conducted as part of the GCWG final report and what that analysis found. 

This section may also want to add the projects SRC has applied for federal CRISI funding. However, none of 

those projects would double track CSX’s main line. 
6) Section 4.18.4, as part of the discussion of short-range and long-range improvements to the I-59/NS corridor,

mentions double tracking NS’s mainline to accommodate passenger rail. Similar to the discussion above about

the CSX recommendation, the SRC is not aware of any plans to double track NS’s main line to accommodate

passenger rail. While there may not be a study of NS’s main line along I-59, if the conclusions the GCWG

reached about CSX’s main line are applicable to NS’s main line, which the SRC suspects is the case, it is a

huge assumption that NS’s main line would have to be double tracked to accommodate passenger rail service.

Recommendation: The draft EIS should be updated to remove the reference to double tracking NS’s main line 

since the SRC is not aware of any party planning to pursue double tracking NS’s main line to accommodate

passenger rail service. In addition, the SRC strongly believes it’s a huge assumption to assume that NS’s main 

line would have to be double tracked to accommodate passenger rail service. Because the GCWG found that 

passenger trains could run on CSX’s line without having to double track the line, the mention of double tracking 

NS’s main line to accommodate passenger rail service should be removed out of prudence. 

7) There is no discussion of 1) Amtrak’s notification to CSX in the Spring 2018 notifying CSX of Amtrak’s intent

to restore passenger rail service in 12-18 months between New Orleans and Mobile on CSX’s tracks or 2) the

SRC’s applications for FY17 R&E funding and FY18 CRISI funding to help implement two round trips a day

passenger rail service between New Orleans and Mobile.

Recommendation: Both of these developments are directly relevant to the Port of Bienville project as the 

passenger rail service would use the same CSX tracks the Port of Bienville currently connects to. Therefore, the 

SRC believes these developments need to be included in this EIS as part of any no-build or alternative analysis. 

Otherwise, the study would be incomplete and therefore inaccurate. 

8) One thing the SRC urges FRA to keep in mind when it comes to include a discussion about necessary capital

improvements along the CSX’s main line for restoring passenger service and the costs associated with these

capital improvements is that Congress rejected the CSX infrastructure estimate as overstated in the report

language accompanying the FY18 Omnibus Appropriations bill (Public Law 115-141) and directed the Gulf

Coast Working Group to continue with FRA/Amtrak’s capital estimates:

These cost estimates are dwarfed by the $2,300,000,000 estimate previously determined by industry, 

which also raised concerns with on-time performance [OTP] 

requirements and delays at drawbridges. The Committee believes 

the GCWG report more accurately reflects these concerns and is 

a more realistic cost estimate, but directs Amtrak and DOT to 

continue working with the host railroad and the Coast Guard to 

refine cost estimates.

 Recommendation: The draft EIS, when it comes to identifying necessary capital improvements along the CSX’s 

main line for restoring passenger service and the costs associated with these capital improvements, should 

follow the GCWG’s and FRA’s own estimates, as mandated by Congress in the FY2018 appropriations bill. 

Conclusion

In closing, we want to thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for the Port Bienville Railroad Project (the Project). The Southern Rail Commission urges the 

EIS be updated to reflect our recommendations above. Otherwise, the EIS will remain incomplete and 

inaccurate with respect to the development of passenger rail along the Mississippi Gulf Coast in the no-build 

and alternatives analysis. 

Sincerely, 

 John Spain-State of Louisiana

Chairman, Southern Rail Commission

Knox Ross-State of Mississippi

Vice-Chairman, Southern Rail Commission
 Wiley Blankenship-State of Alabama

 Secretary/Treasurer, Southern Rail Commission 
October, 24, 2018 MISSISSIPPI 

Ms. Kim D. Thurman, Administrator 

Environmental Division, Mississippi Department of Transportation 

401 North West Street 

Jackson, MS 39201 

RE: Letter of support for Port Bienville Railroad extension 

Dear Ms. Thurman: 

Hancock County has a great deal to offer its industrial and commercial businesses, and several 

valuable incentives to firms seeking to establish locations with unencumbered access to reliable 

transportation options. 

OAK Americas Mississippi Inc. sees great economic value in a proposal to increase the 

region's freight-handling capacity by building a rail-line extension from Port Bienville 

Industrial Park into Pearl River County. The link to the Norfolk Southern Railroad would make 

Hancock County even more appealing to present and future industrial and commercial, by 

complimenting the existing direct connection to the CSX Railroad along the coast. Each of the 

other two coastal counties in MS has access to both east-west and north-south rail connections; 

growth in industry and certain capacity constraints on the existing system necessitate this 

additional infrastructure. 

A feasibility study by the Mississippi Department of Transportation identified a significant 

number of other benefits of an extended rail line, including the ability to: 

• meet the demands of existing and emerging businesses 

• provide future benefits to Stennis Space Center 

• increase the desirability of existing industrial properties 

• evacuate rail and rail supported assets during tropical storms 

• leverage the workforce and transportation assets supporting this region. 

We applaud the forward-looking nature of the rail-service extension proposal set forth by MOOT, 

the Hancock County Port and Harbor Commission, and the Federal Railroad Administration. 

OAK Americas Mississippi Inc. strongly supports the rail-service extension, which is clearly in 

the best interests of the economic success of Hancock County, and urges an expedited 

approval of the final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. 

Sincere,, ,;J \ ~vz_ "'/~ J_ 

John Oladele, Director, Pearl River Site 

DAK Americas Mississippi Inc. • Pearl River Site • Port Bienville Industrial Park 

3303 Port and Harbor Drive • Bay St. Louis, MS 39520 

228-533-4000 (phone) 

www.dakamericas.com 
._ Mississippi Power 

October 26, 2018 

Ms. Kim D. Thurman, Administrator 

Environmental Division, Mississippi Department of Transportation 

401 North West Street 

Jackson, MS 39201 

RE: Letter of support for Port Bienville Railroad extension 

Dear Ms. Thurman: 

2605 13th Street 

Gulfport MS 39501 

228-865-5824 tel 

228-865-5876 fax 

Hancock County has a number of assets to offer its industrial and commercial businesses seeking 

to establish locations with access to reliable transportation. Mississippi Power sees great 

economic value in a proposal to increase the region's freight-handling capacity by building a railline extension from Port Bienville Industrial Park. The north-south rail connection would make 

Hancock County even more appealing to present and future industrial and commercial 

businesses, by complimenting the existing direct connection to the CSX Railroad along the coast. 

Each of the other two coastal counties in MS has access to both east-west and north-south rail 

connections, and the growth in industry and certain capacity constraints on the existing system 

necessitate this additional investment in infrastructure. 

As such, Mississippi Power strongly supports the rail-service extension, which is clearly in the 

best interests of the economic success of Hancock County, and urges an expedited approval of 

the final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. 

Sincerely, 

:::: Economic Development rg ~ Director 

BU/vii 


From: January.Murray@noaa.gov

To: Dixon, Marc (FRA)

Cc: _NMFS ser HCDconsultations; Brandon Howard

Subject: Re: Action: Draft Final EIS/ROD for Port Bienville rail project for cooperating agency review

Date: Friday, June 14, 2019 12:53:47 PM

Hello Marc,

The NMFS Habitat Conservation Division (HCD) has reviewed the combined Final EIS and Record of

Decision for the Port Bienville project and has no comments at this time since NMFS trust resources

are not present. NMFS HCD does not object to the project. Feel free to contact me if further

information is needed.

Thank you for your coordination,

January Murray

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:05 AM <marc.dixon@dot.gov> wrote:

You have received 1 secure file from marc.dixon@dot.gov.

Use the secure link below to download.

Hi January -

Per our conversation from a few minutes ago, I'm resending the email, with draft Final EIS attached, that I sent on

Tuesday, June 11 because it didn't go through due to the large file size.  Read the June 11 below for more

details/instruction.

Please confirm that you received this email, and let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Marc Dixon

South Central Regional Manager

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

Work phone: 202-493-0614

Cell phone: 202-380-6981

From: Dixon, Marc (FRA)

Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 11:28 AM

To: 'January.Murray@noaa.gov' <January.Murray@noaa.gov>

Cc: 'Brandon.Howard@noaa.gov' <Brandon.Howard@noaa.gov>; Wright, Kevin (FRA) <kevin.wright@dot.gov>;

Johnsen, Michael (FRA) <michael.johnsen@dot.gov>

Subject: Action: Review Draft Final EIS/ROD for Port Bienville rail project for cooperating agency review

Hello, January -

My name is Marc Dixon and I’m the South Central Regional Manager at the Federal Railroad Administration

(USDOT).   Per our phone call from earlier this morning, Brandon Howard gave me your name as the new POC for

this project.  I’m assisting my colleague Kevin Wright (copied), Environmental Protection Specialist, with sending the

draft Port Bienville Railroad Final EIS/ROD (file attached) for the Port Bienville rail project (read synopsis below for
background) to cooperating agencies for their review.   (Kevin will be out of the office for several weeks.) 

NOAA -National Marine Fisheries Service is a cooperating agency for the project. Richard Hartman was our

point of contact (POC) at NOAA but I recently learned that he retired when we received an ‘undeliverable’ message

from his email address.  I called NOAA’s Southeast Regional Office and the receptionist gave me your name as a

POC.  If you are the correct POC, FRA requests that you please review the attached draft Final EIS/ROD and

provide comments to me by the end of the month (June 2019) if possible to meet our deadline.  Technically,

you have 30-days to complete your review but, if possible, please review by June 30/July 1.  Please advise if you are

not the correct POC for this particular request. 

Synopsis of Project form the draft FEIS/ROD – Section 1. Introduction

The Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT), in coordination with Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),

and the Hancock County Ports and Harbor Commission (HCPHC) has prepared this final environmental impact

statement (FEIS) for the proposed construction of a new freight railroad line. The proposed new freight rail line,

approximately 24 miles in length, would provide a single-track, direct connection between the Port Bienville Railroad

(PBRR), located at the Port Bienville Industrial Park in Hancock County and the existing Norfolk Southern Railroad

(NS) near Interstate 59 (I-59) north of NASA’s John C. Stennis Space Center (SSC) in Pearl River County (herein

referred to as the “Project”). This connection would provide a second Class I rail connection to Port Bienville and the

Port Bienville Industrial Park. The Surface Transportation Board (STB), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), are cooperating

agencies for the Project.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Marc Dixon

South Central Regional Manager

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Mail Stop 20

Washington, D.C. 20590

Work phone: 202-493-0614

Cell phone: 202-380-6981

Marc.Dixon@dot.gov

________________________

Rail – Moving America Forward

The Federal Railroad Administration’s mission is to enable the safe, reliable, and efficient movement of people and

goods for a strong America, now and in the future.

Secure File Downloads:

Available until: 14 July 2019

Click link to download:

2019-06-07_REVISED DRAFT Port Bienville FEIS-ROD Document - FRA Comments addressed.pdf

46.27 MB, Fingerprint: afb3882a6d2c003957d0fe71e805b8bf (What is this?)
You have received attachment link(s) within this email sent via Accellion Secure File Transfer. To retrieve the attachment(s), please click

on the link(s). To learn how your company can benefit from Accellion Secure File Transfer, please visit http://www.accellion.com

Secured by Accellion

-- 

January Murray

Fishery Biologist

Habitat Conservation Division

NOAA Fisheries Service

5757 Corporate Blvd, Suite 375

Baton Rouge, LA 70808

Office: 225-380-0089

Web www.nmfs.noaa.gov

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/NOAAFisheries/

Twitter www.twitter.com/noaafisheries

YouTube www.youtube.com/usnoaafisheriesgov
From: Johnsen, Michael (FRA)

To: Dixon, Marc (FRA)

Subject: FW: Action: Draft FES/ROD for Port Bienville rail project for cooperating agency review

Date: Monday, July 1, 2019 10:35:35 AM

FYI

Michael Johnsen

Supervisory Environmental Protection Specialist

FRA

Rail – Moving America Forward

The Federal Railroad Administration’s mission is to enable the safe, reliable, and efficient movement

of people and goods for a strong America, now and in the future.

From: Dean, Kenneth [mailto:Dean.William-Kenneth@epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 2:59 PM

To: Johnsen, Michael (FRA) <michael.johnsen@dot.gov>

Cc: Kim Thurman (kthurman@mdot.ms.gov) <kthurman@mdot.ms.gov>; Kajumba, Ntale

<Kajumba.Ntale@epa.gov>; Militscher, Chris <Militscher.Chris@epa.gov>; Wright, Kevin (FRA)

<kevin.wright@dot.gov>

Subject: RE: Action: Draft FES/ROD for Port Bienville rail project for cooperating agency review

Dear Mr. Johnsen,

In accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the draft

Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (FEIS/ROD) for the Port

Bienville Railroad Project, along with the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) response (letter

dated June 11, 2019) to the EPA’s comments (letter dated October 29, 2018).  The Build Alternative

(Alternative C) presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is identified as the

Preferred Alternative in the FEIS/ROD.  The Preferred Alternative includes the construction of a 24-

mile freight rail line that provides a direct connection between the Port Bienville Railroad, located

south of Interstate 10 in Hancock County, Mississippi (MS), and the Norfolk Southern rail line located

near Interstate 59 in Nicholson, Pearl River County, MS.

The draft FEIS/ROD utilizes errata sheets to reflect project changes following the submittal of the

DEIS and responses to public and Agency comments.  The EPA acknowledges the revisions to the

DEIS in response to EPA’s comments.  Per EPA’s request, the Alternative D discussion paragraph in

Subsection 3.2.3.2. was revised to include additional information regarding potential noise and

vibration impacts to residences in the southern portion of the study area.  This information better

supports the decision to eliminate Alternative D from further study.  Also, Subsection 4.15.4 was

revised to include more specific information about migratory birds, with emphasis on Birds of

Conservation Concern and potential effects, pursuant to Executive Order 13186, Section 3(c)(6). 

Furthermore, a new table (Table 5.12) and a new subsection (Subsection 5.14.5) have been added to

summarize and/or discuss the effects of the No-Build and Build Alternatives on the Migratory Birds
of Conservation Concern.

Some of the EPA’s comments are addressed through minor text changes described in the errata

sheets.  Minor text revisions have been made to the wetlands discussion in Section 5.11.1, “Impacts

to Wetlands, Streams, and Other Water Bodies,” in response to EPA’s request for clarification

regarding whether the 100-foot-wide right-of-way for the project includes areas likely to be used as

borrow for the railroad bed.  Based on the FRA’s response, the EPA understands that construction

limits are estimated to be approximately 75 feet wide, and while borrow areas will be determined

later in the project development process, the FRA assumes the wetland impacts will not exceed

those estimated in the DEIS.  The EPA understands that actual construction limits will be defined

during the design phase and wetland impacts will be further defined during the permitting process

phase.

While no revisions or changes were made to the DEIS in response to EPA’s comment regarding the

width of bridges and culverts, the FRA response letter provides an acceptable response to the EPA’s

comment.  According to the FRA’s letter, the 25-, 50- and 100-year floods will be evaluated during

the detailed analysis of bridge crossings and culverts to determine the best solution for maintaining

stream flow.

Based on the FRA’s response to the EPA’s comment regarding construction impacts, the EPA has

determined that clarification is needed in the FEIS/errata sheet.  The FEIS and errata sheet should

clarify that the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be designed to minimize (not

mitigate, as indicated in Section 5.13.1.2 of the DEIS and in the FRA response to comments) water

quality impacts by minimizing the potential for erosion and sedimentation during construction. 

Furthermore, we recommend that the FEIS/ROD identify the agency or organization that would be

responsible for completing the SWPPP and the phase in which the SWPPP would be completed.

According to the DEIS, the proposed Build Alternative impacts 2,482 linear feet of streams and

171.58 acres of wetlands.  In the EPA’s comment letter, the EPA stated, “Any unavoidable impacts

resulting from the constructions of the project should be able to be offset using the nearby

mitigation banks.  The FRA and the MDOT will need to work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to

....”.  In response to the comment, the FRA stated that wetland mitigation will be completed in the

next project phase and that required mitigation, mitigation bank availability, and pricing will be

evaluated and coordinated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  The EPA notes that there are

seven commercial mitigation banks, comprised of similar wetland types as those in the project area,

in relatively close proximity to the proposed project. The EPA is signatory to the mitigation banking

instruments and understands those mitigation banks continue to provide credits to offset wetland

impacts in southern Mississippi.  Any unavoidable impacts resulting from the construction of the

proposed project should be able to be offset using mitigation bank credits within the impacted

watershed(s).

The EPA appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the draft FEIS/ROD.  If you have any

questions regarding the EPA’s review, please contact me at 404-562-9378 or via email at

dean.william-kenneth@epa.gov.
William Kenneth Dean

EPA-MDOT Liaison

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4

Office of the Regional Administrator

National Environmental Policy Act Section

601-321-1135 (Jackson, MS Office)

404-562-9378 (Atlanta, GA Office)

678-628-2079 (iPhone)

dean.william-kenneth@epa.gov

From: Johnsen, Michael (FRA) <michael.johnsen@dot.gov>

Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 3:22 PM

To: Richard.hartman@noaa.gov; Dean, Kenneth <Dean.William-Kenneth@epa.gov>;

Jeff.irwin@stb.gov; Amy_commens-carson@fws.gov

Cc: Dixon, Marc (FRA) <marc.dixon@dot.gov>; Wright, Kevin (FRA) <kevin.wright@dot.gov>;

Orlaskey, Daniel (FRA) <daniel.orlaskey@dot.gov>

Subject: Action: Draft FES/ROD for Port Bienville rail project for cooperating agency review

Hello allAttached is the draft Port Bienville FEIS/ROD for the Port Bienville rail project.  Thanks for your

attention as a cooperating agency.  Technically you have 30-days to complete your review but, if

possible, we would ask that you please review and provide comments by the end of the month (June

2019) if possible to meet our deadline. 

As you may know, Kevin Wright, your trusted project manager, is out of the office.  I can handle any

questions or comments you may have while he is away.  Feel free to get in touch with me at the

contact information below.

Thanks in advance for your expedited review and attention to this document.

Amy- We should have the ESA letter to you shortly (if it has not already been sent by one of our

team members).

Michael Johnsen

Supervisory Environmental Protection Specialist

Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Program Delivery

Office: 202-493-1310

Mobile: 202-450-8540

Rail – Moving America Forward

The Federal Railroad Administration’s mission is to enable the safe, reliable, and efficient movement

of people and goods for a strong America, now and in the future.